Rating: 
Summary: Inadvertent self-satire: hard to read but easy to skim
Review: I do not want to repeat what other reviewers have stated better than I could, but I do want to reinforce their opinions. They are correct that this book would have been better were it about the jury or the experience of judgment more and about the author and his high opinion of himself less. I was amazed and amused by the pedantry and pretensions, but I am academic and therefore used to that. What I was less amused but more amazed to discover was that a writer who so esteemed himself throughout the monograph cannot write well. I should have seen this coming, however. The author stated at the beginning that this was his account of his experiences. As I read, I confirmed that this was a book about Mr. Burnett into which the criminal case, the judge, the lawyers, the accused, the evidence, the courthouse staff, and other jurors would intrude from time to time. Given Burnett's fascination with his mental prowess and process, what I regarded as digressions he would have seen as the essences. Do not buy this book. Go to a public library and get ANATOMY OF A JURY by Seymour Wishman or secure a copy of a "Frontline" cassette called "Inside the Jury Room." That "Frontline" had a pretentious academic, but he was not allowed to dominate. If you must look at this book, examine it at the bookstore. Skip the parts about what Mr. Burnett ate [please do not believe that I am kidding] and find references to subjects about which you might care. Read those quickly. You can push through this book in an hour or so.
Rating: 
Summary: Listen to the recorded version
Review: For those who found (or think they may find) this book pretentious or smug, I strongly suggest you listen to the recorded version. It's recorded by the author himself. I suspect that in the printed version, what Burnett intended to be self-deprecating or self-parodying did indeed come across as self-important. When you hear the author's voice and intonations, though, it's clear that he is aware of his own flaws. In fact, these flaws are part of the story, as much as are the quirks of any of the other characters (jurors). The last lines of the book could not be more clear about the author's awareness of how far he fell short of his duty. I thought his ruminations on justice, his insight about the difference between literature and law, were perceptive and fascinating -- as were the glimpses into the strange bonding experience of jury duty. Well worth a read -- or a listen.
Rating:
Summary: Aargh!! Keep academics off your jury
Review: This book is painfully overwritten and the greatest blessing is its short length. As a trial attorney I give it two stars because it does cover an interesting topic and a murder that is typical in its quirkiness.
But the story could have been told much more compellingly if the author had taken time after the trial (or during deliberations for that matter) to find out his fellow jurors true thoughts on the matter. As it turns out the book portrays the verdict as somewhat a trial by a judge .. with Judge D. Graham Burnette presiding. For those who are fans of the courtroom drama or true crime novels, this is not your flavor. More autobigraphical and introspective than insightful into discovering the truth of the crime or what the other jurors really thought.
Rating: 
Summary: "Have You Reached A Verdict, Mr. Foreman?"
Review: Kudos to this insightful portrait of the trial by jury. Very few books have revealed the inner workings of a jury's deliberations with such clarity and detail. The author sat as the foreman of the jury in the criminal trial of the People vs. Monte Milcray for murder in the second degree held in New York City. In just 183 pages, the author takes the reader through the jurors and their backgrounds, the trial and the evidence and then reveals how all of this plays together for four days during the jury's deliberations and sequestration. You cannot come away from this text and not better appreciate the power of a jury and the valuable service it performs in our system of "justice." For this alone, you will be glad you read this book. This book, however, is not without its flaws. Early on in the text, the author refers to Ockham's metaphorical razor as the philosopher's tool used to excise all but the most essential to arrive at the truth. This book's editor obviously misunderstood this concept, and allowed what is a good book to be lessened with the author's ruminations that do nothing to illuminate what this book is about except to reveal the author's intellectual prowess and his penchant for affected behaviors. Maybe that's the way the Princeton University history department likes its assistant professors (the book's jacket identifies the author as one) to appear in print, but since other reviewers on this site have also complained about how the author's smugness gets in the way, I cannot help but think that this book could have been so much better if a stronger editor had been assigned. If you live in Manhattan or work in its court system, you will particularly appreciate this book. If you're a lawyer, you'd better listen to what the jury actually thinks is important. And if you're a casual reader who appreciates a book about trials and the legal process, I predict you'll like this book, but you probably won't invite its author to your next party.
Rating: 
Summary: Eavesdrop on a jury
Review: Every lawyer would like to eavesdrop on jury deliberations. This book offers the next best thing-a first hand account of a juror's reactions to a murder trial, complete with a detailed account of the jurors' discussions and argument during the deliberations. The author is more than a little pretentious (he spends his free time "doing" poetry and keeps a fountain pen as "a fetish always to hand") and condescending (he originally assumes that a fellow juror, wearing a rodeo belt buckle "apparently without irony" must be a bigot and likely to push for a guilty verdict "if not a lynching"). The description of daily tedium, nightly sequestering in a cheap hotel, and constant unkindness from the judge ("Juror number eight, you will look at me when I address the court") probably won't inspire people to want to serve on a jury. Nevertheless, the amount of detail presented and the author's insight into the jury's deliberations make this book well worth reading.
Rating: 
Summary: Avoid This Book
Review: This is a terrible book by an atrocious author. The author is not very likable; at the start he has made up his mind about the case, so he makes fun of the other jurors for being stupid, especially the ones that don't support his position. His arrogance comes through easily, making long winded speeches to his fellow jurors and "putting them in their place" when they say things he doesn't like (despite his being younger than most of them). He says early on that it was his goal to "hang the jury," and the only rationale he gives for that is that his whole experience in life has been academia, where the discussion essentially never ends, and he just doesn't have it in him to make such a final decision. How odd! There are no real insights into the criminal justice process, just lots of very high-brow language that sounds almost put-on. Also, he exerpts from his diary at one point--showing that even in his personal life, this fellow can only write pretensiously. Avoid this book!
Rating:
Summary: Existential Autobiography
Review: While reporting jury selection, D. Graham Burnett writes: "For a while there is, among us, a woman reading a book of Camus short stories. Then she stops showing up," (p.33). _A Trial by Jury_ invokes the absurd, but it does not embrace the absurd. It would be absurd to read this text with a closed mind. D. Graham Burnett, a historian of science, delivers a text that I view as an existential autobiography. We explore Burnett's thought processes: "What I am writing is my own story of the deliberations," (p. 14), and he acknowledges that his interpretation of the trial and deliberations differs from interpretations by other jurors. Burnett guides us through the trial and deliberations concerning the killing of a transvestite. While exploring the trial and deliberations, we encounter, process, and (sometimes) abandon many judgments (only a few deal with the defendant). Burnett states about the jury: "We ran the gamut of group dynamics: a clutch of strangers yelled, cursed, rolled on the floor, vomited, whispered, embraced, sobbed, and invoked both God and necromancy," (p. 12). The reader becomes familiar with the jury dynamics and one is led to shudder at the raw power granted to 12 citizens and (an obstinate) judge. The author, at times, is obstinate, but he also appears trustworthy (tremendous memory) and dedicated. I found myself fascinated by this academically well-rounded, successful, youthful Ph.D who obsesses over food (he packed a single shirt and a bag full of food for the sequestered deliberations) and who briefly utilizes Wallace Stevens (the poet; pgs. 148 - 151) to interpret the deliberations. This text kept my mind engaged and it will become an addition to a future syllabus for a course I'll teach. Along with this book, I recommend Kafka's _The Trial_, Albert Camus' _The Stranger_, and any text by Wallace Stevens.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointing
Review: In a word, disappointing. Overall, A Trial by Jury was a trial to read. It was slow moving and over written. The author spent too much time patting himself on the back. If he spent more time getting to know his fellow jurors instead of judging them, the book would have had some added dimension. This reader walked away thinking that Mr. Burnett thinks quite a bit about him and not much about those he feels are beneath him. Not worth the read.
Rating:
Summary: Must Read for Lawyers - laymen, watch the movie
Review: The concept of this book is wonderful. Unfortunately, the vantage of the author isn't all that much different than the views of attorneys whose egos arrive long before they do. The condesending tone throughout the book leads me to suspect that the viewpoint may also be biased and tainted. I've worked with just enough lawyers to know which ones should read this book! However, if you truly want a good look at the jury during dilberations, run out and get your paws on "12 Angry Men", a movie from 1997 starting John Lennon, Tony Danza, Will Patterson, and George C. Scott, among others.
Rating:
Summary: A Trial to Read
Review: I understand the impact that serving on a jury has on an individual. My experience as a juror on a homicide trial led to my desire to go to law school. However, you can rely on all of the other negative reviews on this book; Mr. Burnett is a self-important, self-involved bore who fancies himself to be superior to his fellow jurors, when in reality he has no clue as to how to approach the legal decision-making process. Many of my fellow jurors came from humble backgrounds and had more common sense and intelligence by accident than Mr. Burnett has accumulated from his years of living in academia. Skip this book! You have better things to do with your time.
| 
